Can I get opinions on what is presently considered the best consumer
Mother board/video card combination for serious high speed video
editing?

Are the video cards(and motherboards) that serious gamers go for
generally also the best for video editing?

Ideas on what the preferences are for those who love to push the
envelope for (video editing)performance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Darren Harris wrote:

Darren,

When you say "the best" you're going to get some answers you may not be
interested in. Maybe "good for" or "well suited to" would be a better
thing to ask. ;->

Top of the line video cards are around $400. You'd have to be crazy or a
really serious PC gamer to spend that kind of money...

I'm using an Nvidia based MSI FX5600 card. While not "the best" card for
gaming, it's extremely good at Unreal Tournament 2003.

It also has dual monitor capability, and supports overlay on both
monitors so you can play video on either screen. In Win2K (or XP I'd
imagine) if you start playing a video, the right hand screen
automatically plays it full screen.

I just came from a Matrox G400 card. I was kind of hesitant about going
to a non Matrox "gamer" card because the famous Matrox image quality and
was afraid I'd be taking a step down. Well guess what - I run it in a
virtual 2560x1024 resolution (across both monitors), and the image
quality for video editing and Photoshop is awesome. And of course I can
let off steam by fragging my friends while I'm waiting for rendering to
to finish, something I never could do with the Matrox.

So I'd say read all the reviews you can, and go for it. Most of today's
"gaming" cards are great for video editing. No point in wasting money on
a card that won't do both, in my opinion.

Of course if you do your editing in Windows, be real careful about
installing games. Windows is kind of a sucky platform in that installing
a game can easily ruin your codec settings and other important files you
need for editing. I had that happen with Allied Assault Medal of Honor
which is one of my all time favorite games but it drove me nuts till I
fixed it. Now I stick to playing games in Linux where a game install
can't damage system files (as long as you don't install it as root).

Anyway, bottom line is that paying big bucks for a video card isn't going
to help you with editing but it will get you better frame rates in the
games you play. And for Doom 3 you'll need a good card, it's awesome.

If you want "high speed editing", then get the fastest dual Xeons you can
afford or invest in a render-farm and the software to run it.

Keith

Right now probably the fastest and most solid mobo is the Asus P4C800-E
Deluxe which has a 800 Mhz FSB and will handle 3.2 gig P4C (Hyperthreading)
processors. For video editing, a Matrox G550 is plenty good enough as
hardware acceleration doesn't help video display. I do use a gaming card
because I want the hardware acceleration for After Effects. Other issues
are to have enough memory although 1 gig is probably enough and for DV 7200
rpm ATA drives are fast enough. The Asus has hardware RAID if you want it
plus built-in 1 gigabit Intel LAN and a 6.1 sound system plus lots of USB
and 2 firewire ports built in.

Dual Xeons are a bit faster but of little use unless you are going to want
lots of real time video streams running through your work.

Windows XP Pro works just fine and handles the hyperthreading.


"Darren Harris" <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
news:9437a27c.0310161528.14089d93@posting.google.c om...

Darren Harris wrote:
Generally speaking and in most cases, computer video cards
have no significant effect on video editing. I'd select one based
exclusively on gaming considerations.

Remember that you cannot reliably judge/adjust a video picture
based on what it lookes like on a computer video card/monitor.
Regardless of its price/reputation. You must use a REAL television
monitor to view video reliably.

Motherboard choice may be somewhat dependent on what video
edit (i.e. capture, render, etc.) hardware you choose. Or, it may
have no dependency at all. Big horsepower would appear to be
desirable for both gaming and for video editing (or more correctly
for video rendering).

This is general opinion based on the fact that you offered no
details about what kind of video (capture, etc.) hardware you
are considering. Specifics may be VERY different if you have
you heart set on some esoteric piece of hardware. You can't
expect very specific responses with such generic (lack of) detail.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:07:09 -0700, someone wrote:

"Fastest"? "Most solid"? Careful... ;->

Do you really want to start that?

The Asus P4P800 & 800 Deluxe are just as fast and just as solid. Right now
I'm typing this on a P4P800 Deluxe running a hyperthreaded 2.4 GHz P4 at
3.2 GHz and it's *rock* solid w/800 MHz FSB, dual channel DDR (I'm running
PC3700), and the memory throughput I get with it is identical with boards
runing the more expensive 875 chipset if you have the latest BIOS and can
do some simple tweaking. Don't get me wrong, I think the P4C800-E is a
really super board, but it's neither the "fastest" nor the "most stable".



For video editing, a Matrox G550 is plenty good enough as

Thanks everyone.

The reason I posted was to get the details. Manufacturers are not
always up-front or aware of all the possible “bugs” and
“roadblocks”, and users who have the hardware are really
the best way to find out certain things, so general opinions was what
I was after.

Speed is of the essence. And since most of what I will be doing will
involve overlapping a number of (random)videos on the video display,
and on-the-fly, I will be working out of ram disks, so a huge amount
of ram would be needed on the motherboard.

A render-farm is out of the question since I am building a stand alone
system. But I like the fastest dual Xeon idea, and will look more into
it, since I do want lots of real time video streams running through my
work.

But should I wait and instead consider the new 64bit motherboard from
AMD?

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

I meant the new 64 bit chip(which of course would require a mobo that
is compatible).

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:01:16 -0700, Darren Harris wrote:


This sounds *really* interesting. Can you tell us more about your
application?

Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.10.18.21.24.56.143828@hotmail.com>. ..
It's top secret. :-)

Actually the application itself hasn't been written yet.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:46:48 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

Xpress Pro and Boris Red now take advantage of OpenGL accelration and
the power of your graphic card to increase real-time NLE performance.
So does the new version of After Effects.

We are seeing that nVidia based cards offer the best results for these
new NLEs.

Note; While I ma recommending nVidia graphics cards, we do NOT
recommend motherboards that use the new nVidia chipsets. We are
running into lots of tech support problems with these mobos and our
NLE gear.


Gary
Videoguys.com
The Electronic Mailbox http://www.videoguys.com
The Desk Top Video Editing & Production Experts
800 323-2325 or Free DTV tech advice (516) 759-1615

All DTV purchases include our 30 day customer assurance program
and FREE tech support

In view of my stated objectives, I am still not sure where the
bottle-neck will be if there is one.

Manually controlled, "real time" edits to video clips already loaded
into ram from the hard drive is what I'm after, so the speed of data
from hard drive to ram does not seem to be all that important.
Especially since I won't be saving any of the edit changes made to the
source video back on the hard drive.

The video clips will range from one to nine seconds long(and will be a
combined total of about 9,000 frames altogether).

Most of the "on-the-fly" editing will consist of simple overlapping,
directional changes(across the display), and possibly zooming. The
video clips will alternate in a predetermine sequence, but several may
run on the display at a given time.

I'm not even sure if "DDR" ram is really needed for something like
this. But I know that the amount of ram is important.

After the motherboard and video card, it appears that all of the other
hardware and peripherals don't need to be "top-of-the-line", because
they will not effect what I want to do.

It appears that the motherboards that support the Athlon64 only
support 3 or 4 gigs of memory.(Though, unless my math is way off, I
think that should be enough).

Nevertheless, the question remains, is 64 bit processing even needed
for what I want to do?

And would a 256mb video card be desirable for something like this?

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

You're going to have two bottlenecks as I see it - CPU bandwidth and disk
IO bandwidth.

Playing multiple streams simultaneously will quickly limit the
capabilities of the hard drive because of seek times (it has to be moving
the heads all over the place to accomplish it).

I'd recommend putting the videos on multiple drives. SCSI is great for
this although expensive.

I'd stay from Athlon's and look at something like a Dell or IBM 4-way or
8-way Xeon server, then you'll never be CPU bound.

Hard to recommend anything without knowing more about the end use.

You don't need 64 bit processing, just fast CPUs, loads of RAM and
multiple hard drives.

Dual Channel DDR is highly recommend. The throughput is substantially
higher than normal DDR, and far, far higher than SDRAM. Make sure you buy
matched pairs of DDR sticks guaranteed for dual-channel operation.


Darren Harris wrote:

Keith Clark <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3F96BF2D.E241A767@hotmail.com>...
I have a SCSI system with multiple drives, but everything is built
around a Pentium 2(450mhz). Nevertheless, I can't see how the hard
drive(or drives) could be a bottle neck. The speed where it counts is
between ram and the display. If all the video clips are loaded into
the ram-disk *where all the editing will be done*, then there is no
need for the system to keep accessing the hard drive to get them.

As for "CPU bandwidth", everything I've read seems to point to the new
64 bit chip as a better option than a Pentium 4. I read about how you
built your system with a "Asus P4P800 Deluxe motherboard" and "MSI
FX5600VTDR" and would go that route if I thought it was a better
option than a motherboard that can support a 64 bit processor.

I may need more processing power as I experiment with moving shadows
over landscapes, so I assume that the need for video rendering has to
be considered. Basically, I just need to know which option would hit
the ceiling first. A Pentium 4, or an Athlon 64.(I can add the
required ram as I need it).

I don't know how a Xeon would be better, but I'll have to do some
reading up on it. You seem to be saying that a Xeon system would
eliminate the CPU as a bottle-neck, correct?

So it also comes down to an issue of getting faster CPUs? or multiple
CPUs? And there is still the issue of a 256mb video card vs a 128mb
card for multiple streams of video(with some minor rendering).

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Okay, I guess it is going to have to be trial and error.

Thanks.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

Searcher7@mail.con2.com (Darren Harris) wrote in message news:<9437a27c.0310221705.2a5f6ea2@posting.google. com>...

Darren Harris wrote:

I can see the argument that a 64 bit chip should give better processing than a 32 bit chip. You'll get no argument
from me as to the theory. Practice can be something different... The question is "are there programs that support
native 64 bit processing that will do what you need".

Good luck. When you get the thing up and running, please tell us what the heck you're doing. "Moving shadows across a
landscape" sounds a lot like some kind of combat simulator where your multiple video streams would be simulated
threats...?

BTW, are you "the" Darren Haris, the famous Ms PacMan champ?

--Keith

No there are not. What I want to do, requires a start from scratch.

There are several things I want to do. I really would like to be able
to get scenic results simular to that seen in a movie like "The Three
Rings". I've been reseaching a lot concerning special effects, and
have come to the conclusion that most of the good software involved in
creating effects are secretive and propietary.

I don't know about famous... One of these days I want to get back to
my quest of moving up the world record, but I've been too busy.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:20:12 -0800, Darren Harris wrote:


Very cool. Best of luck...

--Keith